3 ms·

>>>Emergent phenomena don't have "objectives", mate. What makes you say that, mate? Are intelligence and consciousness emergent phenomena?

jacques_chester 14y ago
Do you think intelligence and consciousness have "an objective"? They might have a post-hoc discernible function, but that's not the same as a predetermined purpose.
- tossacct 14y ago
  Yes, because the concept of an "objective" is very useful when trying to describe emergence. A semi-related question: If no emergent systems have "objectives", then what things do have "objectives"?
  - jacques_chester 14y ago
    Please, I'm too old for running down teleological rabbit holes.
    - tossacct 14y ago
      If you had simply stated that you didn't believe in the concept of "objectives", instead of singling out my precious emergent systems, there would be no rabbit holes to run down. :) Also is 1 thing that has an objective too much to ask for?
      - jacques_chester 14y ago
        I'm saying that complex systems in and of themselves don't have "objectives". Deliberately designed systems can absolutely have purposes and objectives. If you want to be nitpicky there's a frothing sea of philosophers smashing endlessly against the little rowboat we're in here. Feel free to dive off and swim around, I'll stay here.
        tossacct 14y ago
        I'm responding to your philosophical ideas about emergence, I don't intend on making any philosophical points here, only responding to the ones that you made. You disagreed with the idea that society can have objectives based on philosophical grounds. >>Emergent phenomena don't have "objectives", mate. Society may or may not have some emergent qualities, but it definitely has "deliberately designed" qualities, so therefore according to you: society "can absolutely have purposes and objectives". Examples of deliberately designed qualities: banking system, fiat currency, stock market, credit card infrastructure, etc. All engineered to streamline economic activities and to allow those who control them to wield power(among other purposes). >>>The production of wealth, as measured by GDP, or by the stock markets, or consumer spending, is our yardstick of success. What is success other than the ability to succeed at wielding power, control over your environment etc?
        jacques_chester 14y ago
        > You disagreed with the idea that society can have objectives based on philosophical grounds. I objected to the idea that an emergent phenomenon can be assumed to have objectives. Society wasn't "designed", it simply is. Teleology is the name for assigning human-like motives to things. For example, saying "the hamstring muscle is designed to flex the knee and extend the hip" is erroneous. There is no designer. It evolved; we discern these functions independently of the system. While subsystems may have designed elements, generally these too go on to have complex, emergent properties. And they're subsumed within the larger system anyway. Laws, stock markets etc are all emergent from human interactions. Nobody sat down at the start of history and designed the system we are part of today. It happened without any one guiding intelligence. It's meaningless to say "society's objectives" because there was nobody to assign such objectives and nobody can assign such objectives. Anybody who says "the objectives for society are X" is basically saying "my personal preference for the unfolding of the emergent system are X". It's a substitution error.
        tossacct 14y ago
        Well now you've jumped off the boat into the frothy water, just like you said you wouldn't ;). Let me get us back in the boat. I agree that the definition of the concept of emergence is that there is no objective. No one even vaguely familiar with the concept could possibly disagree with that. My questions before were not disbelief, just making sure you had some passing familiarity with the concepts before I engaged you. This is the heart of the matter: you still have not named me one deliberately designed system that has purposes and objectives, like you said you could here: >>>Deliberately designed systems can absolutely have purposes and objectives. Your inability to name one thing that is not emergent makes me think this: 1-You believe that everything is emergent. From the hamstring to society, banks and currency and economics and bartering, and everything in between. If everything is emergent then obviously nothing has objectives, since that is in the definition of the concept of emergence.

jacques_chester 14y ago

Do you think intelligence and consciousness have "an objective"? They might have a post-hoc discernible function, but that's not the same as a predetermined purpose.

tossacct 14y ago
Yes, because the concept of an "objective" is very useful when trying to describe emergence. A semi-related question: If no emergent systems have "objectives", then what things do have "objectives"?
- jacques_chester 14y ago
  Please, I'm too old for running down teleological rabbit holes.
  - tossacct 14y ago
    If you had simply stated that you didn't believe in the concept of "objectives", instead of singling out my precious emergent systems, there would be no rabbit holes to run down. :) Also is 1 thing that has an objective too much to ask for?
    - jacques_chester 14y ago
      I'm saying that complex systems in and of themselves don't have "objectives". Deliberately designed systems can absolutely have purposes and objectives. If you want to be nitpicky there's a frothing sea of philosophers smashing endlessly against the little rowboat we're in here. Feel free to dive off and swim around, I'll stay here.
      - tossacct 14y ago
        I'm responding to your philosophical ideas about emergence, I don't intend on making any philosophical points here, only responding to the ones that you made. You disagreed with the idea that society can have objectives based on philosophical grounds. >>Emergent phenomena don't have "objectives", mate. Society may or may not have some emergent qualities, but it definitely has "deliberately designed" qualities, so therefore according to you: society "can absolutely have purposes and objectives". Examples of deliberately designed qualities: banking system, fiat currency, stock market, credit card infrastructure, etc. All engineered to streamline economic activities and to allow those who control them to wield power(among other purposes). >>>The production of wealth, as measured by GDP, or by the stock markets, or consumer spending, is our yardstick of success. What is success other than the ability to succeed at wielding power, control over your environment etc?
        jacques_chester 14y ago
        > You disagreed with the idea that society can have objectives based on philosophical grounds. I objected to the idea that an emergent phenomenon can be assumed to have objectives. Society wasn't "designed", it simply is. Teleology is the name for assigning human-like motives to things. For example, saying "the hamstring muscle is designed to flex the knee and extend the hip" is erroneous. There is no designer. It evolved; we discern these functions independently of the system. While subsystems may have designed elements, generally these too go on to have complex, emergent properties. And they're subsumed within the larger system anyway. Laws, stock markets etc are all emergent from human interactions. Nobody sat down at the start of history and designed the system we are part of today. It happened without any one guiding intelligence. It's meaningless to say "society's objectives" because there was nobody to assign such objectives and nobody can assign such objectives. Anybody who says "the objectives for society are X" is basically saying "my personal preference for the unfolding of the emergent system are X". It's a substitution error.
        tossacct 14y ago
        Well now you've jumped off the boat into the frothy water, just like you said you wouldn't ;). Let me get us back in the boat. I agree that the definition of the concept of emergence is that there is no objective. No one even vaguely familiar with the concept could possibly disagree with that. My questions before were not disbelief, just making sure you had some passing familiarity with the concepts before I engaged you. This is the heart of the matter: you still have not named me one deliberately designed system that has purposes and objectives, like you said you could here: >>>Deliberately designed systems can absolutely have purposes and objectives. Your inability to name one thing that is not emergent makes me think this: 1-You believe that everything is emergent. From the hamstring to society, banks and currency and economics and bartering, and everything in between. If everything is emergent then obviously nothing has objectives, since that is in the definition of the concept of emergence.